Re: DNS: AlterNIC and AUSRC

Re: DNS: AlterNIC and AUSRC

From: Rick Welykochy <rick§dot.net.au>
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 12:54:53 +1000
The show goes on ...

Adam Todd wrote:

> How do you know this?  Are you saying now - in a public forum, that AURSC
> doesn't provide an equal to or better quality of service?  That's a VERY
> VERY BIG presumption Rick.  Wasn't it you who brought up the matter of
> presumption?
> 
> How about you TRY it and then tell me.

Not as good as using my local DNS server. Networking 101:

My DNS resolution *HAS* to be faster using my local
DNS (one 130 ms hop from my modem) than using one
on another system, further away.

And its been tested:

warp.dot.net.au   130 ms  one hop
203.21.205.1      263 ms  11 hops

I believe you when you say IT WORKS. I really do. But the only
practical solution for me to use your invisible domains is
to install AURSC zones onto my DNS server.
 
> The only reason I remain under AH.NET is because I'm very well known under
> it.  I'd love to move over to a&#167;a and have http://a.a as my web site, and
> in fact some people do use this, but those same people constantly use
> at&#167;ah.net and http://www.ah.net as their contact points.  Not to mention
> it's been put in just about every project and product I've released.

Hmmm .. a pretty good argument supporting portable domains, isn't it?

> Anyway - AHNET is very special to us.  Perhaps you shodul read about where
> the name came from :)

I have. Last night I re-read a lot of your web site.
And followed links to the Alternic Sites in the USA.

Your site left me wanting ... some pages were not
found or seemed very old. e.g. home page has a link to
http://www.aursc.ah.net/aursc_isps.html - not found.

Also, the list of participating ISPs numbered 8.
8 out of over 400 ISPs in Aus. Oh, make that 7, since
Tangent Internet does not respond on the Web. Perhaps
the page is out of date?

Your page on other participating Root Server Confederations
numbered one other confederation.

Your page on the Australian Root Server Confed mentions
a number of domains, but only two are 'on the web', i.e.
.aus and .pokey ... why is that?

On the USA side, the eDNS site admitted that they've had very
little impact. At http://www.edns.net/ you can read:

"eDNS never did gain widespread support, but it proved that
alternate ... solutions could work from a technical
perspective ..."

> >You've got more stringent rules than M.IT and CCA or somethin'?
> 
> Nope, actually less stringent overall.  You can read them if you like.

Where?

> >Very little chance of fragmentation actually happening. Only once the
> >alternative TLD's are accepted will they even be seen by 99.9% of the
> >users out there in Netland.
> 
> There you go quoting that number again.  I look forward to seeing your
> report validating 99%.

We're both good at that, aren't we?
Report? What report? We're both guesstimating here.

> You are CHOOSING not to visit AURSC.  Don't say that 99% of people also
> follow in your footsteps because your wrong, and tha'ts very misleading to
> people who don't yet understand what this is all about or are not yet up to
> date.

But, all those people who don't understand, all those people who
only joined the Internet only in the last few years, all of that
great unwashed mass certainly wouldn't have configured their
DNS to use 203.21.205.1 as their primary. None of them will
be able to see the alternative domains. 

By all means, invite them to try. To what end is my final question.
What are they really missing out on? What vast wealth of Web,
FTP, email, etc. are we 99% missing out on by not seeing the
alternative domains?


==================================================================
 _/  Richard Welykochy                 mailto:rick&#167;dot.net.au
_/  Dot Communications Ltd             http://www.dot.net.au/world
==================================================================
Received on Thu May 21 1998 - 14:03:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Sep 22 2014 - 04:00:07 UTC